Areas of the US with a lot of nuclear have historically also had the lowest rates.
Not in my experience. Illinois has had some of the largest percent of electrical power as nuclear, but has had above average rates, for residential customers like me, at least.
state-by-state ratesstate-by-state fuel types
Compared with similar demographics, your power has been relatively cheap. It has been dominated by coal pricing, then gas pricing. Nuclear pricing has rarely driven retail pricing upward. The Southeast is where they've been nuclear dominated the most, and their rates remain low.
There were also many plants built for much less, and on schedule. They have been running reliably for 40 years and have produced more clean power than solar and wind will for a long, long time. Areas of the US with a lot of nuclear have historically also had the lowest rates. Unfortunately for nuclear, natural gas has become too cheap to compete with and there is no value in the market place on the reliability and emission free characteristics of nuclear.
Our failure to build new nuclear come from a lack of commitment. Yes, huge first of a kind projects will have budget and schedule problems. But even the more expensive existing plants have paid for themselves several times over, and many are still running and can run for another 20+ years. Unfortunately the general public has been fed a steady diet of FUD from the O&G industry for so long that they have an army of followers to help spread it. Meanwhile, the average person is completely ignorant of the real risks in comparison to stuff they accept every day.
So, like Germany, we will spend a shitload of money on the partial solution of solar and wind, and our overall CO2 emissions will not be significantly reduced. we will suffer a failure of will, insight, and commitment.
This. And meanwhile China is kicking our ass and build a lot of nuclear;
There is a little known technique for comparing cameras. You take pictures from both under the same conditions and examine the differences. Maybe Apple is so many years head this technique doesn't apply?
There's a certain kind of mentality that drives some people to see vaping as just another form of smoking, which they also consider to be evil. It's why we see these attempts at laws, particularly under the "think of the children" banner.
That these people group vaping in with smoking shows that they really don't care about health.
Vaping is very similar to smoking, which is why it can help people stop smoking cigarettes. You equate 'unhealthy' and 'evil', and I'm not sure why. It seems like a way to dismiss legitimate concerns about the possible health impacts of vaping. I think most people would agree that it can be a helpful thing for smoking cessation, but I don't want my kids to start vaping or smoking. I don't think it is evil. At best it has minimal negative health impacts. The real problem with knowing is that there are so many different vaping solutions with different ingredients that it is hard to study impacts in a way that is applicable across the board.
I quit a couple of years ago after being an nicotine addict (quite heavy) for about 20 years... One morning i just stopped..
Its been many years since I quit. I started in high school and quit soon after college. I failed when I tried the 'I'll just finish this pack" method. One day I woke up and said "that cigarette I smoked last night was my last", none of that just one more crap.
I think E cigs can help smokers quit, and many smokers who want to quit try E-cigs which is probably a big reason why "They found that smokers who used e-cigs tried to quit smoking more often and succeeded (for at least three months) more often than smokers who didn't use e-cigs. "
That statistic itself doesn't really tell us the E-Cigs are more helpful because smokers who don't try E-cigs may be less motivated to quit to begin with.
Slashdot headline 101, when someone says they might sell information, tack on 'to the highest bidder' in the headline, even if they never said that. It creates a sense of greed and shifts focus away from possible other sensible reasons.
I actually have the advanced version of the Neato Botvac..that makes maps of my house after it runs..which I thought was nice to visually ensure it hit everything.
I hope THEY don't start selling this info....!!!
They might find out my sofa clearance just high enough for the damn thing to get stuck. I'll give that away free.
Any manufacturer of devices with Lithium Ion batteries runs a risk of an occasional failure sparking a fire. Its not negligence, they implement all kinds of quality controls and features to prevent fires, but they are going to happen. Might be best for Apple to just pay up and not make much noise about it, as it is a rare event overall.
Not only have others done the same thing before, even without these examples, "peer review" is almost always a load of bullshit. Unless someone repeats the experiment/study/analysis themselves as a peer-reviewer, the peer review tends to be little more than a grammar and spelling check, did everyone label their figures correctly, etc.
Unfortunately, the 'its been peer reviewed' argument has been used out the wazoo right here on/. Much easier than challenging the point itself and a rationalization for dismissal of criticism.
I think you can say, with little debate, that Windows is the greatest enabler of media piracy for the masses ever created, aside from the internet itself.
^^ This.
Show me a continuous, buildable line between those three cities and I'll show you more governing bodies (not to mention NIMBY NGOs and regulators) than you had kids your high school class.
No need to show you, its been verbally green lighted. I'm sure they thought it all through, after all who would dare give a verbal green light if it weren't vetted. Verbal green lights must be taken seriously, for they spark global media attention.
Tesla has sold every single production vehicle they've made, plus 10s of thousands they haven't yet made. That's poor sales in absolute numbers, but in relative terms, the traditional auto makers would figuratively kill for those numbers.
They would not kill for those numbers for such a small production level as it is not profitable. There have been many 'big car company' models that could not meet initial demand. What you want as a manufacturer ideally is to supply 100% of demand with minimal inventory.
If they could find a way to target an immunosuppressant to a narrow set of 'things' (could not find the right word), it would have huge benefits for lots of autoimmune disorders as well as transplants. But from what I can tell we are a long way off. I would thing that a hand, for example, probably has hundreds of things in it the host body might uniquely reject. A huge challenge.
Part of me thinks this is incredible, but how useful is it when you must subject the patient to such high levels of immunosuppressants? For live saving/extending transplants there is little choice, but for something like hands I wonder if a prosthetic path isn't a better one. This is a special case since the kid needs the drugs already of course. That kid is a trooper.
No, the numbers are not in the article. They give the results but not all the inputs and assumptions. How many KWH do they expect the panels to produce in a year? They probably assumed that the diesels fuel burn power would be reduced by the panel output amount. Of course we know that marginal power changes by the diesel can affect fuel consumption much less than the base average consumption per unit. Of course the guys pushing the solar panel idea could care less about those type of details. It seems you could care less as well because you never asked.
What "support" would they need? It's their money. The sums on pay back time suggest less than a year.
It take money up front to do this type of work, not covered in operating budgets. You have to get the funding. Payback in a year is a guess that doesn't sound plausible or in line with other solar system payback periods.
Yeah, there are a few good counter points to my supposition. I guess there really isn't that much of a correlation between size and scavengerous traits. Thanks
Good job India- the big question though is: why haven't countries been using solar panels on mass transit roofs before now? I'm sure it could save lots of money most places.... well maybe not mass transit in subways.
First, understand that these panels are not to help move the train, only to power on board electrical equipment (lights, etc).
Although the train will still be pulled by a diesel-powered locomotive, a set of 16 solar panels atop each coach will replace the diesel generators that typically power these appliances.
The first question I have is; How much to install more energy efficient equipment on the train? Second question is; How does that cost/benefit compare to added solar panels and weight. Solar panels only help part of the time, energy efficiency improvements will help 24/7. Unfortunately these articles never give us that kind of critical information, they are more about the symbolic wonder of solar panels.
So, they refuse to release the text of complaints that nobody actually wants to read, and someone is complaining.
You assume that "nobody" actually wants to read. That's a very dangerous assumption in most cases because of "there exists" cases...
How is it dangerous in this particular case? Do you really think there is something contained in 40,000 complaints that hasn't already been pounded to death? I'm just being realistic. Who wants to read them?
You have proven my point (see bold).
No, your point is based on YOUR erroneous assumption that I assume people don't want to read complaints in most cases, or even in any other case. I never said so. So if you want to make assumptions and prove yourself right, no need to involve me.
Slashdot Mirror
Gas prices will go way up as soon as the right level of dependance is reached. Prices will remain low while gas is displacing other sources.
Not in my experience. Illinois has had some of the largest percent of electrical power as nuclear, but has had above average rates, for residential customers like me, at least. state-by-state rates state-by-state fuel types
Compared with similar demographics, your power has been relatively cheap. It has been dominated by coal pricing, then gas pricing. Nuclear pricing has rarely driven retail pricing upward. The Southeast is where they've been nuclear dominated the most, and their rates remain low.
There were also many plants built for much less, and on schedule. They have been running reliably for 40 years and have produced more clean power than solar and wind will for a long, long time. Areas of the US with a lot of nuclear have historically also had the lowest rates. Unfortunately for nuclear, natural gas has become too cheap to compete with and there is no value in the market place on the reliability and emission free characteristics of nuclear.
Our failure to build new nuclear come from a lack of commitment. Yes, huge first of a kind projects will have budget and schedule problems. But even the more expensive existing plants have paid for themselves several times over, and many are still running and can run for another 20+ years. Unfortunately the general public has been fed a steady diet of FUD from the O&G industry for so long that they have an army of followers to help spread it. Meanwhile, the average person is completely ignorant of the real risks in comparison to stuff they accept every day.
So, like Germany, we will spend a shitload of money on the partial solution of solar and wind, and our overall CO2 emissions will not be significantly reduced. we will suffer a failure of will, insight, and commitment.
This. And meanwhile China is kicking our ass and build a lot of nuclear;
http://world-nuclear-news.org/...
There is plenty of proof out there that plants can be built on time and on scedule if they are not parsed and strangled.
There is a little known technique for comparing cameras. You take pictures from both under the same conditions and examine the differences. Maybe Apple is so many years head this technique doesn't apply?
The O administrative was probably the most manipulative administration ever.
There's a certain kind of mentality that drives some people to see vaping as just another form of smoking, which they also consider to be evil. It's why we see these attempts at laws, particularly under the "think of the children" banner.
That these people group vaping in with smoking shows that they really don't care about health.
Vaping is very similar to smoking, which is why it can help people stop smoking cigarettes. You equate 'unhealthy' and 'evil', and I'm not sure why. It seems like a way to dismiss legitimate concerns about the possible health impacts of vaping. I think most people would agree that it can be a helpful thing for smoking cessation, but I don't want my kids to start vaping or smoking. I don't think it is evil. At best it has minimal negative health impacts. The real problem with knowing is that there are so many different vaping solutions with different ingredients that it is hard to study impacts in a way that is applicable across the board.
I quit a couple of years ago after being an nicotine addict (quite heavy) for about 20 years ... One morning i just stopped..
Its been many years since I quit. I started in high school and quit soon after college. I failed when I tried the 'I'll just finish this pack" method. One day I woke up and said "that cigarette I smoked last night was my last", none of that just one more crap.
I think E cigs can help smokers quit, and many smokers who want to quit try E-cigs which is probably a big reason why "They found that smokers who used e-cigs tried to quit smoking more often and succeeded (for at least three months) more often than smokers who didn't use e-cigs. "
That statistic itself doesn't really tell us the E-Cigs are more helpful because smokers who don't try E-cigs may be less motivated to quit to begin with.
There's always the need for tech support centers for all those autonomous cars.
Slashdot headline 101, when someone says they might sell information, tack on 'to the highest bidder' in the headline, even if they never said that. It creates a sense of greed and shifts focus away from possible other sensible reasons.
I actually have the advanced version of the Neato Botvac..that makes maps of my house after it runs..which I thought was nice to visually ensure it hit everything.
I hope THEY don't start selling this info....!!!
They might find out my sofa clearance just high enough for the damn thing to get stuck. I'll give that away free.
Any manufacturer of devices with Lithium Ion batteries runs a risk of an occasional failure sparking a fire. Its not negligence, they implement all kinds of quality controls and features to prevent fires, but they are going to happen. Might be best for Apple to just pay up and not make much noise about it, as it is a rare event overall.
Not only have others done the same thing before, even without these examples, "peer review" is almost always a load of bullshit. Unless someone repeats the experiment/study/analysis themselves as a peer-reviewer, the peer review tends to be little more than a grammar and spelling check, did everyone label their figures correctly, etc.
Unfortunately, the 'its been peer reviewed' argument has been used out the wazoo right here on /. Much easier than challenging the point itself and a rationalization for dismissal of criticism.
I think you can say, with little debate, that Windows is the greatest enabler of media piracy for the masses ever created, aside from the internet itself.
^^ This. Show me a continuous, buildable line between those three cities and I'll show you more governing bodies (not to mention NIMBY NGOs and regulators) than you had kids your high school class.
No need to show you, its been verbally green lighted. I'm sure they thought it all through, after all who would dare give a verbal green light if it weren't vetted. Verbal green lights must be taken seriously, for they spark global media attention.
Tesla has sold every single production vehicle they've made, plus 10s of thousands they haven't yet made. That's poor sales in absolute numbers, but in relative terms, the traditional auto makers would figuratively kill for those numbers.
They would not kill for those numbers for such a small production level as it is not profitable. There have been many 'big car company' models that could not meet initial demand. What you want as a manufacturer ideally is to supply 100% of demand with minimal inventory.
If they could find a way to target an immunosuppressant to a narrow set of 'things' (could not find the right word), it would have huge benefits for lots of autoimmune disorders as well as transplants. But from what I can tell we are a long way off. I would thing that a hand, for example, probably has hundreds of things in it the host body might uniquely reject. A huge challenge.
Part of me thinks this is incredible, but how useful is it when you must subject the patient to such high levels of immunosuppressants? For live saving/extending transplants there is little choice, but for something like hands I wonder if a prosthetic path isn't a better one. This is a special case since the kid needs the drugs already of course. That kid is a trooper.
No, the numbers are not in the article. They give the results but not all the inputs and assumptions. How many KWH do they expect the panels to produce in a year? They probably assumed that the diesels fuel burn power would be reduced by the panel output amount. Of course we know that marginal power changes by the diesel can affect fuel consumption much less than the base average consumption per unit. Of course the guys pushing the solar panel idea could care less about those type of details. It seems you could care less as well because you never asked.
What "support" would they need? It's their money. The sums on pay back time suggest less than a year.
It take money up front to do this type of work, not covered in operating budgets. You have to get the funding. Payback in a year is a guess that doesn't sound plausible or in line with other solar system payback periods.
I think it's safe to assume that the rail company will have thought of that and done the calculations, don't you?
No, I absolutely don't. Its much easier politically to get support for the gesture of installing solar panels that for refurbishment.
Yeah, there are a few good counter points to my supposition. I guess there really isn't that much of a correlation between size and scavengerous traits. Thanks
The panels pay for themselves by almost an order of magnitude in the first year. If that is a dent, it is a big one.
More accurately, the article claims they might.
Good job India- the big question though is: why haven't countries been using solar panels on mass transit roofs before now? I'm sure it could save lots of money most places. ... well maybe not mass transit in subways.
First, understand that these panels are not to help move the train, only to power on board electrical equipment (lights, etc).
Although the train will still be pulled by a diesel-powered locomotive, a set of 16 solar panels atop each coach will replace the diesel generators that typically power these appliances.
The first question I have is; How much to install more energy efficient equipment on the train? Second question is; How does that cost/benefit compare to added solar panels and weight. Solar panels only help part of the time, energy efficiency improvements will help 24/7. Unfortunately these articles never give us that kind of critical information, they are more about the symbolic wonder of solar panels.
So, they refuse to release the text of complaints that nobody actually wants to read, and someone is complaining.
You assume that "nobody" actually wants to read. That's a very dangerous assumption in most cases because of "there exists" cases...
How is it dangerous in this particular case? Do you really think there is something contained in 40,000 complaints that hasn't already been pounded to death? I'm just being realistic. Who wants to read them?
You have proven my point (see bold).
No, your point is based on YOUR erroneous assumption that I assume people don't want to read complaints in most cases, or even in any other case. I never said so. So if you want to make assumptions and prove yourself right, no need to involve me.